2016 Interviewed Statistics

[gottawannit]

The EC scores also make me sad...they're not even the minimum scores, but the AVERAGE ones of people who interviewed, meaning there were people who interviewed falling below 5 or 6 out of 17. 

 

 

 I completely agree. What really grinds my gears is that by having such low scores, upping the weight of ECs to 30% or whatever doesn't really affect do anything. This is because a terrific EC score is easily offset by a GPA fluctuation of .03, which, when most applicants are huddled around 3.8-3.9 shouldn't really make a difference towards their academic capacity.

 

Having done an undergrad and a masters at UofA I am extremely disappointed in their process and lack of transparency. Maybe its its only my experience thus far, but the whole "we want more well-rounded students" has been their motto for years but as you can see from the aforementioned statistics, they are still very much interested in the traditional, hollow, and generic "premed" applicants.

[daftjustice]

 I completely agree. What really grinds my gears is that by having such low scores, upping the weight of ECs to 30% or whatever doesn't really affect do anything. This is because a terrific EC score is easily offset by a GPA fluctuation of .03, which, when most applicants are huddled around 3.8-3.9 shouldn't really make a difference towards their academic capacity.

 

Having done an undergrad and a masters at UofA I am extremely disappointed in their process and lack of transparency. Maybe its its only my experience thus far, but the whole "we want more well-rounded students" has been their motto for years but as you can see from the aforementioned statistics, they are still very much interested in the traditional, hollow, and generic "premed" applicants.

I was offered an interview and my GPA was 3.5-6ish range wiith only an UG degree. No Master's or PhD.

I definitely do not fit in the 3.8-3.9 category.

Honestly, I thought my chances at U of A were laughable.

Doubt I would've been offered an interview in previous years, but with my n of 1 I'm guessing there is at least a little change.

 

[Premed23]

That's remarkable, daft, you're ECs and MCAT must have really pushed you up despite the big emphasis on GPA. Good for you! Goes to show it can be done (though emphasis on grades is a tad excessive imo).

[UCpls<3]

I'm fairly certain that Person A with a 3.50 GPA but a 10+ on EC would be just as strong as a candidate as Person B with a 3.98 with a 2 in EC.

 

Person A would be ~10th percentile for GPA but 90th percentile for EC

Person B would be ~90th percentile for GPA but 10th percentile for EC 

 

They end up being practically the same pre-interview.

 

 

I also personally don't see the low EC marks as anything that's problematic. It's based on z-scores, so there will be people getting 0/30% if they got like a 1 and also people getting 30/30% if they got a 12.

[Haruba]

I'm fairly certain that Person A with a 3.50 GPA but a 10+ on EC would be just as strong as a candidate as Person B with a 3.98 with a 2 in EC.

 

Person A would be ~10th percentile for GPA but 90th percentile for EC

Person B would be ~90th percentile for GPA but 10th percentile for EC 

 

They end up being practically the same pre-interview.

 

 

I also personally don't see the low EC marks as anything that's problematic. It's based on z-scores, so there will be people getting 0/30% if they got like a 1 and also people getting 30/30% if they got a 12.

Hmm yeah you're right, I never even considered that they would Z-score it, but that makes sense. If people with <3.8 GPAs are able to get interviews/admissions, and people with higher GPAs are getting rejected, than they must be distributing the EC scores more than what we see in the emails.

[gottawannit]

Y'all mustn't forget how z-scores work, though! Just because the average is 6 and the max is 12 doesn't mean you know anything about standard deviation, and thus, the curve shape. In all likelihood, the stdev is is probly something around 2.5 (making 8.5 a good EC, 11 amazing, and 12 the top), whereas the stdev for GPA is more like 0.05. Furthermore, the curves are almost certainly not symmetrical, so you can't make the above Person A/Person B argument. Most people likely have GPA clustered in 3.8-3.9 range, with a bunch in the 3.9 and 3.7, and only a couple in 3.6 range , tapering to the left (like myself and daftjustice). Those few in the 3.6 do almost nothing to change the average and stdev of such a large sample (500ish, right?).

 

Similarly, the EC curve is almost certainly not symmetrical. Probly a ton of people in 4-8 range, then only a couple people actually scoring terribly in the 1-3's and then it tapers off as the scores move right towards double digits.

 

Because the two curves skew in opposite directions, there are MANY more people in "90th percentile" for GPA with decent or better ECs than vice versa, simply based on the shape that is described in the stats letter they sent out.

 

 

Anyway, its all speculation and I feel like I struck a nerve with a few people about my criticisms of the UofA system. Obviously some people have terrific ECs with lower GPA and vice-versa, but don't be naive and think that simply because they "say" they are favoring "well-rounded" applicants that it will actually be put in motion. Numbers don't lie, yo.

[daftjustice]

Y'all mustn't forget how z-scores work, though! Just because the average is 6 and the max is 12 doesn't mean you know anything about standard deviation, and thus, the curve shape. In all likelihood, the stdev is is probly something around 2.5 (making 8.5 a good EC, 11 amazing, and 12 the top), whereas the stdev for GPA is more like 0.05. Furthermore, the curves are almost certainly not symmetrical, so you can't make the above Person A/Person B argument. Most people likely have GPA clustered in 3.8-3.9 range, with a bunch in the 3.9 and 3.7, and only a couple in 3.6 range , tapering to the left (like myself and daftjustice). Those few in the 3.6 do almost nothing to change the average and stdev of such a large sample (500ish, right?).

 

Similarly, the EC curve is almost certainly not symmetrical. Probly a ton of people in 4-8 range, then only a couple people actually scoring terribly in the 1-3's and then it tapers off as the scores move right towards double digits.

 

Because the two curves skew in opposite directions, there are MANY more people in "90th percentile" for GPA with decent or better ECs than vice versa, simply based on the shape that is described in the stats letter they sent out.

 

 

Anyway, its all speculation and I feel like I struck a nerve with a few people about my criticisms of the UofA system. Obviously some people have terrific ECs with lower GPA and vice-versa, but don't be naive and think that simply because they "say" they are favoring "well-rounded" applicants that it will actually be put in motion. Numbers don't lie, yo.

no nerve struck. totally agree with you on z-scores (it's how we are headed at my school, which, thank god because the highest grade this past semester in any class was a 78).

 

My thinking is is that U of A being at liberty with how they score people for their ECs is quite important.

 

ECs are so subjective that if I was U of A looking at two people, person A who comes across as a robot (maybe even with reasonable ECs) and person B (who really only has ECs going for them), U of A could totally boost person B's EC scores to give them a leg up if they so wished. And how can that be criticized? EC ratings are subjective. That's how I would enable someone with something to offer because they are more "well-rounded" (such a nebulous term) get into the running. Although the fact that no one hit above 12 is interesting. But did someone say that that was just for the 4th year IP pool? Does this mean that a non-trad could have scored even higher?

 

But I digress. All speculation. Gotta keep entertained right?

 

edited to make sense and correct my phone's shenanigans

[daftjustice]

Disclaimer: I've been watching too much House Of Cards recently. Frank Underwood has gotten into my head.

[GH0ST]

 I completely agree. What really grinds my gears is that by having such low scores, upping the weight of ECs to 30% or whatever doesn't really affect do anything. This is because a terrific EC score is easily offset by a GPA fluctuation of .03, which, when most applicants are huddled around 3.8-3.9 shouldn't really make a difference towards their academic capacity.

 

Having done an undergrad and a masters at UofA I am extremely disappointed in their process and lack of transparency. Maybe its its only my experience thus far, but the whole "we want more well-rounded students" has been their motto for years but as you can see from the aforementioned statistics, they are still very much interested in the traditional, hollow, and generic "premed" applicants.

 

This logic is incorrect...... since ECs are by definition subjective, lower scores are simply the result of applicants being similar to one another, which also affects the percent difference if you want to stand out. Regardless of what SD there is, a +1 with a lower average is more significantly different than a +1 with a higher average. By having strong standards and a lower average, those with stronger ECs do stand out much more by the numbers. 

 

 

Y'all mustn't forget how z-scores work, though! Just because the average is 6 and the max is 12 doesn't mean you know anything about standard deviation, and thus, the curve shape. In all likelihood, the stdev is is probly something around 2.5 (making 8.5 a good EC, 11 amazing, and 12 the top), whereas the stdev for GPA is more like 0.05. Furthermore, the curves are almost certainly not symmetrical, so you can't make the above Person A/Person B argument. Most people likely have GPA clustered in 3.8-3.9 range, with a bunch in the 3.9 and 3.7, and only a couple in 3.6 range , tapering to the left (like myself and daftjustice). Those few in the 3.6 do almost nothing to change the average and stdev of such a large sample (500ish, right?).

 

Similarly, the EC curve is almost certainly not symmetrical. Probly a ton of people in 4-8 range, then only a couple people actually scoring terribly in the 1-3's and then it tapers off as the scores move right towards double digits.

 

Because the two curves skew in opposite directions, there are MANY more people in "90th percentile" for GPA with decent or better ECs than vice versa, simply based on the shape that is described in the stats letter they sent out.

 

 

Anyway, its all speculation and I feel like I struck a nerve with a few people about my criticisms of the UofA system. Obviously some people have terrific ECs with lower GPA and vice-versa, but don't be naive and think that simply because they "say" they are favoring "well-rounded" applicants that it will actually be put in motion. Numbers don't lie, yo.

 

z-scores work in more idealistic settings where the truth is known...whereas in most sampling statistical distributions the t-score is what's used, which is generally wider even with a high sample size. 

 

The byproduct of having a high GPA is not the fault of the school nor the system.....but simply the sample characteristics from the population. Following my previous comment, those with high GPAs do not stand out since the average is so high already. The lower SD suggests there is less potential spread assuming the distribution is symmetrical (which you alluded to is not). What is also important is considering the SD with the absolute difference as well ... especially since real people look at these applications to give a holistic assessment. 

 

Take u = 3.90 +/- 0.05, someone with a GPA of 4.0 is defined as 2 SD above the mean, which is around ~97%tile on the t-distribution... that said a 3.9 and 4.0 isn't very different and both are quite excellent scores. EC = X +/- Y follows a similar logic, but not only does a greater score make you stand out via +X SD, but also the absolute difference. Furthermore, since ECs are by definition subjective, rising above on ECs is more challenging, but it is also rewarding. This doesn't mean however that other schools that put ECs weighing more reward ECs less than the UofA..... it's that the UofA has been progressively moving to favour more well-rounded applicants, and will continue to do so in the years to come. 

 

- G

[cedarvideo]

You would probably have to be Mother Theresa on an Olympic athlete team. 

 

16/17 ––> you didn't cure cancer. 

[Kivi]

Does anyone know if they were out of 17 last year too?

[16app]

Some questions I have about EC scoring:

 

- MD admissions is/should be in the business of taking subjectivity out of the interview process, for many reasons. How is that being done? One way is to ensure personal activities are evaluated by more than one person, taking out individual bias. I hope that is happening regardless of how time consuming it might be. Evaluations should of course be based on a predetermined scoring system and criteria. They should be done without knowledge of any other aspects of the application (academics, demographics, etc.).

 

- What is the goal of evaluating ECs? And by that I don't mean: 'Are ECs important enough to be evaluated in med applicants'. lol. I mean should it be used in the same way as the MCAT in some schools which use it as a cutoff to weed out applicants? Of course not. It is used in most schools to rank candidates worthy of admission. That being said, if ECs are truly valued in the ranking system, does the scoring system allow it equal weight as say the GPA? From my experience applying in Ontario, anecdotal evidence says it's not so in Ontario schools. People with higher GPAs generally trump those with stronger ECs (unless of course my expectation of what constitutes strong ECs is totally wrong). I'm not so sure of the situation at U of A. What I will say is that the scoring should not be designed so that there are a few outliers (10 people in the applicant pool scoring 12 out of 17 for example) with high scores whereas there are many more applicants that can attain a maximum academic score (ie 100 people in the applicant pool scoring a 4.0 GPA).

 

Such scoring does not give equal weight to ECs and academics. It in fact devalues ECs compared to academics because there are fewer (10 vs 100) people who can make a difference through ECs alone as opposed to GPA. It would be interesting to see what admissions statistics broken down that way.

 

Sleepless night rantings over for now. lol

[gottawannit]

Some questions I have about EC scoring:

 

- MD admissions is/should be in the business of taking subjectivity out of the interview process, for many reasons. How is that being done? One way is to ensure personal activities are evaluated by more than one person, taking out individual bias. I hope that is happening regardless of how time consuming it might be. Evaluations should of course be based on a predetermined scoring system and criteria. They should be done without knowledge of any other aspects of the application (academics, demographics, etc.).

 

- What is the goal of evaluating ECs? And by that I don't mean: 'Are ECs important enough to be evaluated in med applicants'. lol. I mean should it be used in the same way as the MCAT in some schools which use it as a cutoff to weed out applicants? Of course not. It is used in most schools to rank candidates worthy of admission. That being said, if ECs are truly valued in the ranking system, does the scoring system allow it equal weight as say the GPA? From my experience applying in Ontario, anecdotal evidence says it's not so in Ontario schools. People with higher GPAs generally trump those with stronger ECs (unless of course my expectation of what constitutes strong ECs is totally wrong). I'm not so sure of the situation at U of A. What I will say is that the scoring should not be designed so that there are a few outliers (10 people in the applicant pool scoring 12 out of 17 for example) with high scores whereas there are many more applicants that can attain a maximum academic score (ie 100 people in the applicant pool scoring a 4.0 GPA).

 

Such scoring does not give equal weight to ECs and academics. It in fact devalues ECs compared to academics because there are fewer (10 vs 100) people who can make a difference through ECs alone as opposed to GPA. It would be interesting to see what admissions statistics broken down that way.

 

Sleepless night rantings over for now. lol

I'm loving your perspective - I'm totally on board with it. I do believe that even at UofA multiple people look over your application, which is a good start. But like you said with many many people able to score the maximum score for GPA but very few can do so with ECs, it puts people at a disadvantage. There is absolutely no question that those with higher grades trump those with good activities - with the exception of various exceptions: common ones include athletes, or people who get extra marks from masters/PhD.

 

Have you ever checked out Dr. Ian Walker (head of UofC admissions) podcast or blog? Fantastic read + listens. He goes through the exact statistics that you wish uofa would disclose (not that they ever would) and explains how, in order for them to offset the inherent bias towards GPA, UofC has had to make EC outweigh more than double that of GPA

[Goku]

Anyone got the 4th year OOP stats?

[16app]

I'm loving your perspective - I'm totally on board with it. I do believe that even at UofA multiple people look over your application, which is a good start. But like you said with many many people able to score the maximum score for GPA but very few can do so with ECs, it puts people at a disadvantage. There is absolutely no question that those with higher grades trump those with good activities - with the exception of various exceptions: common ones include athletes, or people who get extra marks from masters/PhD.

 

Have you ever checked out Dr. Ian Walker (head of UofC admissions) podcast or blog? Fantastic read + listens. He goes through the exact statistics that you wish uofa would disclose (not that they ever would) and explains how, in order for them to offset the inherent bias towards GPA, UofC has had to make EC outweigh more than double that of GPA

 

I haven't checked his blogs but definitely will have to know that I hear about it. This bias towards incredibly high GPAs is really just lazy in my opinion. It is just not the case that people with the highest GPAs make the best doctors. After a certain point, GPAs really stop serving as a useful predictor for success in med school. I mean does a person with a GPA of 3.8 not have the academic aptitude to succeed in medical school? Beyond a certain GPA what useful purpose does GPA serve? And if it is a matter of ranking candidates, is GPA really the best way to rank candidates who already have demonstrated academic aptitude? Why not use other more useful criteria to differentiate between candidates? Ask any patient and the most important thing they look for in doctors are the interpersonal skills and attitude towards the profession. Differentiate between candidates based on their motivations, not GPA. And that's why ECs, personal essays, references, interviews, etc should be emphasized more. But yet overwhelmingly it is the GPA and MCAT that trumps other aspects of a candidate's application. I do believe it has lead to poorer healthcare (doctors who are in it for themselves and not for the patient)

[Kivi]

I haven't checked his blogs but definitely will have to know that I hear about it. This bias towards incredibly high GPAs is really just lazy in my opinion. It is just not the case that people with the highest GPAs make the best doctors. After a certain point, GPAs really stop serving as a useful predictor for success in med school. I mean does a person with a GPA of 3.8 not have the academic aptitude to succeed in medical school? Beyond a certain GPA what useful purpose does GPA serve? And if it is a matter of ranking candidates, is GPA really the best way to rank candidates who already have demonstrated academic aptitude? Why not use other more useful criteria to differentiate between candidates? Ask any patient and the most important thing they look for in doctors are the interpersonal skills and attitude towards the profession. Differentiate between candidates based on their motivations, not GPA. And that's why ECs, personal essays, references, interviews, etc should be emphasized more. But yet overwhelmingly it is the GPA and MCAT that trumps other aspects of a candidate's application. I do believe it has lead to poorer healthcare (doctors who are in it for themselves and not for the patient)

 

   

[Thermophilus]

After meeting many incredible candidates at interviews over two admissions cycles the idea that students with top grades are somehow lacking in interpersonal skills, drive for positive patient outcomes, and/or a genuine passion for medicine seems dismissive of those individuals and the talents they have nurtured--oftentimes in spite of challenges and hardships.

[Haruba]

I haven't checked his blogs but definitely will have to know that I hear about it. This bias towards incredibly high GPAs is really just lazy in my opinion. It is just not the case that people with the highest GPAs make the best doctors. After a certain point, GPAs really stop serving as a useful predictor for success in med school. I mean does a person with a GPA of 3.8 not have the academic aptitude to succeed in medical school? Beyond a certain GPA what useful purpose does GPA serve? And if it is a matter of ranking candidates, is GPA really the best way to rank candidates who already have demonstrated academic aptitude? Why not use other more useful criteria to differentiate between candidates? Ask any patient and the most important thing they look for in doctors are the interpersonal skills and attitude towards the profession. Differentiate between candidates based on their motivations, not GPA. And that's why ECs, personal essays, references, interviews, etc should be emphasized more. But yet overwhelmingly it is the GPA and MCAT that trumps other aspects of a candidate's application. I do believe it has lead to poorer healthcare (doctors who are in it for themselves and not for the patient)

 

After meeting many incredible candidates at interviews over two admissions cycles the idea that students with top grades are somehow lacking in interpersonal skills, drive for positive patient outcomes, and/or a genuine passion for medicine seems dismissive of those individuals and the talents they have nurtured--oftentimes in spite of challenges and hardships.

 

I think the problem with medical school admissions in general is that it is difficult to predict the type of physician an individual will become. I absolutely agree with you that GPA and MCAT do not tell the whole story, but I do not think shifting the favor towards ECs would be much more effective. I know many people, as I'm sure we all do, that just do something in order to add it to their CV or increase their volunteer hours. At the end of the day, ECs do not tell more of a story than more cognitively-based attributes do--yes, ECs can signify a dedication to communities/research/volunteering, but sometimes they don't. And I think the bigger question to ask is how well does the types of ECs someone engages in predict the type of doctor they will be? Just because I am the president of X club or the star athlete on team Y, does this mean I will be a good physician? Not any more than having a 4.00 GPA or 522 MCAT would predict I think.

 

What IS important is to accept well-rounded people, but I think there is an almost inherent bias in that people assume people with >3.9 GPAs are socially inept and engage in lackluster ECs, which is not the case, as Thermophilius points out. Many of the most brilliant people I know  not just have high grades, but are actively involved in their communities and are passionate about making a difference. While I am curious about the U of A grading of Personal Activities, I'm also guessing that the strict criteria is to keep EC scoring as objective as possible--U of C places a lot of weight on ECs, but scoring is highly subjective, and even during training sessions, I know that file reviewers still score inconsistently.

 

Bottom-line is that it is difficult to predict how someone is going to turn out once they graduate. While of course being a physician with strong communication and advocacy skills is important, it is equally important to have physicians who are able to critically analyze and memorize high volumes of information (you just can't get around having to know drug names and disease symptoms!). I am a proponent of using ECs and interviews as major criteria in evaluating med school applicants, but I believe that it is also important that we are not ignoring the academically demanding nature of being a physician, and that this should be reflected in the admissions process. I believe the 60/40 split, in favor of ECs and interview, at U of A is a good compromise.

 

At U of C, the split is 20/80 in terms of academics (which consists of GPA, CARS, and subjective score) to ECs /interview, which seems a bit extreme to me. At the same time, I know many amazing people at U of C med who would make great physicians one day! I think the variety of admissions criteria we see around Canada is effective in producing a diverse group of new physicians--if schools such as U of C and Mac are producing physicians who are especially strong communicators and health advocates, and schools such as U of A and U of T are producing physicians who are extremely motivated medical experts and scholars, we are able to create a diverse generation of doctors better able to deal with challenges that our healthcare system will face in the future.

 

Just my two cents!

[16app]

Great points from everyone above. I absolutely agree with all the points and more generally that well rounded individuals deserve to be physicians because of the nature of the profession. If a person is able to excel in both academics and extracurriculars, he/she is almost certainly a good candidate for med school and deservedly so.

 

I guess my point is that let's say we have an applicant that has a 3.8 GPA and an average EC score vs an applicant that has a 4.0 GPA and an EC score below average. Anecdotal evidence tells me the latter would have a greater chance of getting into med school. And I would have to disagree that they should for the reasons mentioned in my posts.

 

A second point is that in my opinion there are many reasons for working to achieve a high GPA, but at the end of the day your achievement serves your own purpose. That is you are working for a better future for yourself. And that is completely acceptable and desireable. Me scoring a higher GPA than others helps no one more than myself and my social circle if it results in a higher socioeconomical standing. Most ECs on the other hand, regardless of what your intentions are, serve the community. And for that virtue alone it should be held in higher regard.

 

Mind you I have had some negative healthcare experiences which colour my opinions. My mild aversion to stats is probably because of being treated like just another number as a patient. Doctors stating they can only have 1 issue per visit (like my time is not as valuable as theirs and it is more efficient to bring in a patient for multiple visits?), having a doctor say I can follow up if I have decided to do the surgery with him (even before I have enough information to make my decision) like they have a ticking counter on how many surgeries they need to perform in a day to earn their keep, etc. In fact, from my experience nurses in general have afforded me better care than doctors. I do intend to change it for the better, if accepted of course.

 

Yes, diversity is excellent, but if in fact let's say 3 of the 6 schools in Ontario are geared towards academically inclined physicians, is that a split our community needs? Where the need is probably greater for primary care physicians than those having more interest in research? Is that a split we would want within a single school even?

 

I think medicine as a whole is improving and moving towards patient centered care and so there is more emphasis on volunteering, etc in the admissions process. But why not take it a step further and have input from patients on what they want to see prioritized in our future doctors? Let's do some surveys and integrate the results into the admissions process. 

[Thermophilus]

I am sorry that you have had bad experiences with healthcare. I also agree that patients' experiences and expectations should be taken into consideration within the medical community and medical school admissions--I suspect this is already the case. I would caution that individuals not connected to healthcare may not understand the realities of an underbudgeted and strained Canadian medical system. Think of wait times and unemployed orthopods for example. To defend some doctors' choices regarding patients I would note that practices baloon to serve underserved communities. In shadowing physicians I have witnessed situations similar to the one you mentioned about allowing only a single issue and it was an issue of medical justice. The physician may not have been weighing themself at all in the decision, rather they may have been respecting the needs of other patients. I would agree that a system that only allows one complaint myst be overhauled for the safety of patients, but people work with what they have.

 

The idea that GPA only serves oneself seems untrue for everyone that took degrees that have any level of transferability to work at the bench or the bedside. Furthermore, it was my observation that a high GPA is the result of tenacious and indefatigable study over four years which allows it to serve as an indicator of work ethic. Two tenths of a point on a four point scale that is developed through assessment of 3cr chunks over a 120cr whole does seem significant to me because I have a great respect for the abilities and value of educators.

 

Finally, the post I made earlier was intended to foster the idea that it might be foolish to assume that individuals with average grades and MCATs are somehow going to be well above others in general regarding ECs, interpersonal skills, and non-cognitive abilities.

 

Sorry for any typos, I'm on my phone.

[daftjustice]

The idea that GPA only serves oneself seems untrue for everyone that took degrees that have any level of transferability to work at the bench or the bedside. Furthermore, it was my observation that a high GPA is the result of tenacious and indefatigable study over four years which allows it to serve as an indicator of work ethic. Two tenths of a point on a four point scale that is developed through assessment of 3cr chunks over a 120cr whole does seem significant to me because I have a great respect for the abilities and value of educators.

 

 

Great insight regarding doctors and medical justice. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is (I'm in the hospital every day).

 

Not sure I would agree about a .2 difference in GPA being significant. There are just way too many factors at play: difficulty of course material (think of all the easy-A hunters!), grading, etc., etc.

 

I wonder if it would help if course transcripts showed both GPA as well as relative performance to the class in the form or z-score. Some, but not all schools do this. I just can't help but feel bad for my engineer friends who get B+ when the average is C-. <-- I realize this is a bit of a dead horse to beat.

 

Also, the other thing that I think some schools do exceptionally well (U of C in particular) is recognize that work ethic isn't just reflected in GPA (Not saying this is what you're implying!). GPA is probably one of the more straight-forward markers for sure, but not the only one. For example, elite-level _________ may excel through dedicated practice, perhaps at the expense of decimal additions to GPA.

 

Finally, sometimes work ethic isn't directly proportional to final grades; sometimes the classes are easy As requiring little to no work/critical thought. In other instances, some courses have capped grades (I had a few courses where the highest mark possible was 75% and it was a core requirement!).

 

 

Forgive iPhone mistakes

[bearpuppy]

I haven't checked his blogs but definitely will have to know that I hear about it. This bias towards incredibly high GPAs is really just lazy in my opinion. It is just not the case that people with the highest GPAs make the best doctors. After a certain point, GPAs really stop serving as a useful predictor for success in med school. I mean does a person with a GPA of 3.8 not have the academic aptitude to succeed in medical school? Beyond a certain GPA what useful purpose does GPA serve? And if it is a matter of ranking candidates, is GPA really the best way to rank candidates who already have demonstrated academic aptitude? Why not use other more useful criteria to differentiate between candidates? Ask any patient and the most important thing they look for in doctors are the interpersonal skills and attitude towards the profession. Differentiate between candidates based on their motivations, not GPA. And that's why ECs, personal essays, references, interviews, etc should be emphasized more. But yet overwhelmingly it is the GPA and MCAT that trumps other aspects of a candidate's application. I do believe it has lead to poorer healthcare (doctors who are in it for themselves and not for the patient)

Just to answer your question about aptitude, the AAMC data shows that people with a 3.0 GPA and 27 MCAT minimum are just as successful (as measured by passing licensing exams) than their higher performing peers. So no, you don't need a 3.8.

[BoopityBoop]

I know this isn't in-line with the intense discussion above... But it is still relevant and an interesting read:

"PREDICTIVE VALUE OF GRADE POINT AVERAGE (GPA), MEDICAL COLLEGE ADMISSION TEST (MCAT), INTERNAL EXAMINATIONS (BLOCK) AND NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS (NBME) SCORES ON MEDICAL COUNCIL OF CANADA QUALIFYING EXAMINATION PART I (MCCQE-1) SCORES"

http://cmej.ca/cmej/index.php/cmej/article/view/507

[bearpuppy]

Do we still have no OOP 4th year stats posted? Can someone do that please?

[Thermophilus]

I know this isn't in-line with the intense discussion above... But it is still relevant and an interesting read:

 

"PREDICTIVE VALUE OF GRADE POINT AVERAGE (GPA), MEDICAL COLLEGE ADMISSION TEST (MCAT), INTERNAL EXAMINATIONS (BLOCK) AND NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS (NBME) SCORES ON MEDICAL COUNCIL OF CANADA QUALIFYING EXAMINATION PART I (MCCQE-1) SCORES"

http://cmej.ca/cmej/index.php/cmej/article/view/507

This was an interesting read and certainly shows the value of NBMEs as an early indicator of performance well in advance of the MCCQE1.

 

The std dev on gpa/mcat in table 2 shows a fairly homogenous class regarding these measures--as expected. It is diverse enough that my earlier assertion that .2 deviation in gpa is significant is likely inaccurate. It would be cool to study a wildly diverse class at some point. It would also be interesting to see if the NBME-MCCQE1 correlation remained strong at places other than UofM.